Legal Opinion

Plotinsky v. Gardner

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 6, 1960PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHugh S. Coyle, J.

This is a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, instituted by petitioner, an aggrieved party, who owns and resides in a private residence situated diagonally opposite the property in question, to review and annul the determination and decision made by respondents, granting a special permit and variance to Sigmund and Mildred Ordinsky to construct a gasoline service station on the subject premises owned by them in the City of New Rochelle. It is undisputed that the Ordinskys as applicants applied pursuant to section 8.3 of article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance of the City…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Dowsey v. Village of KensingtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Matter of Long Island R.R. Co. v. HylanNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  3. Stone v. CraySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938
  4. Freitag v. MarshAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  5. Kaufman v. City of Glen CoveNew York Supreme Court · 1943

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Mumaw v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  2. Hartnett v. SegurAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
  3. Brandt v. Zoning Board of AppealsNew York Supreme Court · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API